The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant did not operate a vehicle with a modified number plate, and did not use a special agreement by altering the special agreement among the certificate of automobile transfer.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's determination as to the violation of the Automobile Management Act without any justifiable reason, the alteration of private documents, and the display of altered private documents, i.e., to sell the automobile of this case to the defendant at KRW 5,500,000,000,000, which was consistently adopted and investigated by the investigation agency from March 3, 2009, after checking that the defendant was seized on the vehicle register, the defendant decided to directly release the seizure of the automobile of KRW 60,000,000,000,000 to KRW 4,90,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was remitted from the defendant and KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, excluding the vehicle registration certificate, etc. at the court below's 5,000,00 won.